alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013367EN.01003302.xml

| 14.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 367/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 367/33

---

Action brought on 4 October 2013 — Three-N-Products/OHIM — Munindra (PRANAYUR)

(Case T-543/13)

2013/C 367/59

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Three-N-Products Private Ltd (New Delhi, India) (represented by: N. Colombo, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Munindra Holding BV (Lelystad, Netherlands)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal No. R 638/2012-4 dated 25 July 2013 in its entirety and, consequently, reject the registration of the opposite application PRANAYUR; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal No. R 638/2012-4 dated 25 July 2013 in its entirety and, consequently, reject the registration of the opposite application PRANAYUR;

| — | Order the OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Three-N-Products Private Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Three-N-Products Private Ltd;

| — | Order Munindra Holding B.V. to pay the costs incurred by Three-N-Products Private Ltd. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order Munindra Holding B.V. to pay the costs incurred by Three-N-Products Private Ltd.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PRANAYUR’ for goods in classes 5 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 7 170 095

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘AYUR’ and figurative marks containing the word element ‘Ayur’

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
Final - Agenda 

MEETING OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON IMMUNIZATION PRACTICES (ACIP) 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Atlanta, Georgia 30329 

September 12, 2023 

10:00 

10:15 Introduction 

Current landscape of SARS-CoV-2 lineages 

COVID-19 epidemiology 

Post-COVID conditions 

COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness update 

Economic analysis of COVID-19 vaccination 

COVID-19 vaccine safety surveillance 

12:15 

12:25 Moderna 2023 - 2024 COVID-19 vaccine 

Novavax 2023 - 2024 COVID-19 vaccine 

Pfizer-BioNTech 2023 - 2024 COVID-19 vaccine 

1:10 

1:20 

3:10 

3:15 

3:35 

3:40 

4:00 

Acronyms

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

CMS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 

COVID-19 Coronavirus disease 2019 

EtR Evidence to Recommendations Framework 

FDA Food and Drug Administration 

GRADE Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation 

HRSA Health Resources and Services Administration 

IHS Indian Health Service 

NCHHSTP National Center for HIV, Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention [of CDC/DDID] 

NCIRD National Center for Immunization & Respiratory Diseases [of CDC/DDID] 

NCEZID National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Diseases [of CDC/DDID] 

NIAID National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases 

OIDP Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS Policy 

SARS-CoV-2 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 

WG Work Group 

WHO World Health Organization 

VaST COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical (VaST) Work Group 

VE Vaccine Effectiveness 

AGENDA ITEM 

Welcome and introductions 

Break

Break

Evidence to Recommendations 

Overview of COVID-19 vaccine implementation 

Bridge Access Program 

Break

Public comment 

Break

Vote 

Adjourn 

PRESIDER/PRESENTER(s) 

Dr. Grace Lee (ACIP Chair) 

Dr. Melinda Wharton (ACIP Executive Secretary, CDC) 

Dr. Matt Daley (ACIP, WG Chair) 

Dr. Natalie Thornburg (CDC/NCIRD) 

Dr. Fiona Havers (CDC/NCIRD) 

Dr. Sharon Saydah (CDC/NCIRD) 

Dr. Ruth Link-Gelles (CDC/NCIRD) 

Dr. Lisa Prosser (University of Michigan) 

Dr. Nicola Klein (Kaiser Permanente Northern California) 

Dr. Fran Priddy (Moderna) 

Dr. Filip Dubovsky (Novavax) 

Dr. Kayvon Modjarrad (Pfizer-BioNTech) 

Dr. Megan Wallace (CDC/NCIRD) 

Dr. Georgina Peacock (CDC/NCIRD) 

Dr. Evelyn Twentyman (CDC/NCIRD) 

Dr. Megan Wallace (CDC/NCIRD)
# C_2015198EN.01001401.xml

| 15.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France)) — LFB Biomédicaments SA, Association des déficitaires en Alpha 1 Antitrypsine (Association ADAAT Alpha 1-France) (C-271/14), Pierre Fabre Médicament SA (C-273/14) v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics, Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé

(Joined Cases C-271/14 and C-273/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Medicinal products for human use - Directive 89/105/EEC - Article 6(3) and (5) - Removal of medicinal products from a list of pharmaceutical proprietary products covered in addition to fixed payments in respect of hospital treatment - Obligation to state reasons))

(2015/C 198/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: LFB Biomédicaments SA, Association des déficitaires en Alpha 1 Antitrypsine (Association ADAAT Alpha 1-France) (C-271/14), Pierre Fabre Médicament SA (C-273/14)

Applicants:

Defendants: Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics, Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6 of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to state reasons provided for in Article 6(3) and (5) is applicable to a decision which restricts the conditions of reimbursement or reduces the level of coverage of a medicinal product by excluding it from the list of proprietary medicinal products covered by compulsory health insurance schemes in addition to services relating to hospital treatment covered by fixed payments in respect of periods of hospitalisation and hospital care.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.

1

---
No. 10-608.

#### Michael T. Green, Petitioner v. Michelle Rhee.

562 U.S. 1138, 131 S. Ct. 937,

178 L. Ed. 2d 754,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 249.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.
# C_2015236EN.01002102.xml

| 20.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/21

---

Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Argenta Spaarbank NV v Belgische Staat

(Case C-578/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Corporation taxes - Directive 90/435/EEC - Article 1(2) and Article 4(2) - Parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States - Common system of taxation - Deduction of taxable profits of the parent company - Factual and legislative context of the dispute in the main proceedings - Reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling - Insufficient information - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2015/C 236/30)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Argenta Spaarbank NV

Applicant:

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Defendant:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium), by Decision of 28 November 2014, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.

1

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report of Elscint Limited (the "Company")
on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Uri Levin, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

         Date: June 30, 2005

                                                By: /s/ Uri Levin
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                Name: Uri Levin
                                                Title: Chief Financial Officer
                                                (Principal Financial Officer)


                                     -104-
No. 10-6914.

#### David Flowers, Petitioner v. William Lee, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility.

562 U.S. 1072, 131 S. Ct. 666,

178 L. Ed. 2d 497,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9337.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 16 (Monday, January 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3729]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1690]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-1172-000]


Union Electric Company; Notice of Filing

January 20, 1998.
    Take notice that on December 22, 1997, Union Electric Company (UE), 
the transmission provider, tendered for filing a Service Agreement with 
UE, the transmission customer, for Firm Point-to-Point Transmission 
Service. UE asserts that the purpose of the Agreement is for UE when it 
takes transmission service for itself in accordance with FERC 
Regulations, and pursuant to its Open Access Transmission Tariff filed 
in Docket No. OA96-50.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before February 2, 1998. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-1690 Filed 1-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 10-7352.

#### Manuel Rosas-Hernandez, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1096, 131 S. Ct. 808,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9509.

178 L. Ed. 2d 540,

December 6, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 388 Fed. Appx. 463.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 128 (Monday, July 6, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 36470]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17709]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster #3089; Amendment #1]


Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

    In accordance with a notice from the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency dated June 16, 1998, the above-numbered Declaration is hereby 
amended to include Beaver, Pike, and Susquehanna Counties in the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as a disaster area due to damages caused 
by severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding that occurred May 31 through 
June 2, 1998. In addition, applications for economic injury loans from 
small businesses located in the following contiguous counties may be 
filed until the specified date at the previously designated locations: 
Lawrence, Monroe, and Wayne Counties in Pennsylvania; Columbiana, 
County, Ohio; Hancock County, West Virginia; Warren and Sussex Counties 
in New Jersey; and Broome Orange, Sullivan, and Tioga Counties in New 
York.
    Any counties contiguous to the above-name primary counties and not 
listed herein have been previously declared.
    All other information remains the same, i.e., the deadline for 
filing applications for physical damage is August 7, 1998 and for 
economic injury the termination date is March 8, 1999.
    The economic injury numbers are 990800 for Ohio; 990900 for West 
Virginia; 991000 for New Jersey; and 991100 for New York.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008)

    Dated: June 24, 1998.
Bernard Kulik,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 98-17709 Filed 7-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,743<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,592
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (214)
<INVENTORY>                                     52,926
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           2,281
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,835
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 119,202
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                       (82,176)
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,511
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   119,202
<SALES>                                          8,593
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,109
<CGS>                                            4,910
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,855
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,365
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     9
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,082
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,592
<INCOME-TAX>                                       814
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,778
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,778
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .34
<FN>
<F1>Balance includes $766 of restricted cash.
</FN>


</TABLE>
No. 10-1333.

#### Sandy Creek Energy Associates, L.P., Petitioner v. Sierra Club, Inc., et al.

565 U.S. 810, 132 S. Ct. 82,

181 L. Ed. 2d 13,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6612.

October 3, 2011.

The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.

Same case below, 627 F.3d 134.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>       1
       
<S>                                     <C>       
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       Mar-01-1997
<PERIOD-START>                          Mar-02-1996
<PERIOD-END>                            Mar-01-1997                     
<CASH>                                      153,000
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                            12,665,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                              17,130,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         35,597,000
<PP&E>                                   11,316,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            7,398,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           42,622,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    22,334,000
<BONDS>                                           0
<COMMON>                                  1,267,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                               15,787,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             42,622,000
<SALES>                                  69,789,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         82,704,000
<CGS>                                    41,796,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            53,988,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            673,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        1,446,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (4,641,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 83,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (4,724,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                            (4,724,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   .96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   .96

        

</TABLE>
No. 10-5116.

#### Ronald Wayne Cady, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

562 U.S. 1088, 131 S. Ct. 695,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9072.

178 L. Ed. 2d 524,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 904, 131 S. Ct. 243, 178 L. Ed. 2d 162, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 6290.
#### Ataolla Ajoudanpour et al., Plaintiffs, v Rhonda Globman, Also Known as Rhonda Grobman, et al., Defendants. (Action No. 1.) Lindsay Grobman, Appellant-Respondent, v Adam J. Chernoff et al., Respondents-Appellants, et al., Defendants. (Action No. 2.) Robin Rosenthal, Plaintiff, v Adam J. Chernoff et al., Defendants. (Action No. 3.)

[767 NYS2d 816]—

In three related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff in Action No. 2 appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Honorof, J.), entered August 28, 2001, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of her and against the defendants Adam J. Chernoff and Rhonda Globman, also known as Rhonda Grobman in Action No. 2, in the principal sum of only $10,000, and the defendants Adam J. Chernoff and Rhonda Globman, also known as Rhonda Grobman in Action No. 2, cross-appeal from the same judgment.

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed as abandoned (see 22 NYCRR 670.8 [c], [e]); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a new trial on the issue of damages, with costs to abide the event.

We agree with the contention of Lindsay Grobman, the plaintiff in Action No. 2 (hereinafter the plaintiff), that the jury verdict was inconsistent. The jury found that the plaintiff, inter alia, sustained an injury which resulted in a “permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]), and awarded her damages for future medical expenses, yet failed to award any damages for future pain and suffering. The failure to award any damages for future pain and suffering cannot be reconciled with the finding of permanent injury *(see Shaw v Jacobs,*279 AD2d 624 [2001]; *Sescila v Garine,*225 AD2d 684, 685 [1996]; *Laylon v Shaver,*187 AD2d 983 [1992]). Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a new trial on the issue of damages. In light of our determination, we need not address the plaintiffs claim that the award for past pain and suffering was inadequate. Krausman, J.P., Friedmann, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.
No. 10-1453.

#### Joseph Planey, Petitioner v. Suzanna Planey.

565 U.S. 822, 132 S. Ct. 109,

181 L. Ed. 2d 35,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6950,

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Mahoning County, denied.